Bharat Mint And Allied Chemicals vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Others
Facts
The petitioner, Bharat Mint And Allied Chemicals, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The petitioner sought a direction for respondent no. 3 to decide their objections filed under Rule 86A(2) of the CGST/UPGST Rules, 2017, within a specified time frame. The petitioner's counsel pressed only this relief. The respondents, Union of India and others, represented by the Standing Counsel, had no objection to the petitioner's request. The judgment does not specify the tax period(s) or the amount in dispute.
Held
The Court decided to dispose of the writ petition by directing respondent no. 3 to decide the objections of the petitioner filed under Rule 86A(2) of the CGST/UPGST Rules, 2017. The decision was to be made expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order along with the objections. The Court also stipulated that a reasonable opportunity of hearing must be afforded to the petitioner before deciding the objections. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's case. The ratio decidendi is that procedural delays in deciding statutory objections can be remedied by a High Court through a writ of mandamus, directing expeditious disposal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct respondent no. 3 to decide the objections of the petitioner filed under Rule 86A(2) of the CGST/UPGST Rules, 2017, within a time-bound period? The petitioner argued that their objections filed under Rule 86A(2) should be decided expeditiously. The revenue (respondents) stated they had no objection to this request.
Sections Cited
Rule 86A(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1028 of 2021 Petitioner :- Bharat Mint And Allied Chemicals Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Mehrotra,Satya Vrata Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Shri Satya Vrata Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.P. Singh Kachhawaha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed before us the only relief that the objections of the petitioner filed under Rule 86A(2) of the CGST/UPGST Rules, 2017 may be directed to be decided by the respondent no. 3 within a time bound period. No other point has been argued before us.
Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid request of the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no. 3 to decide the objections of the petitioner under Rule 86A(2) of the CGST/UPGST Rules, 2017, expeditiously and preferably, within four weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order al
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.